Replies

The Pittsburgh paper is a true organ of conservatism. It is lamenting what it shrinks from saying: This administration's legacy will be the end of any lip service to conventional conservatism. That is, the end of resisting programs on the federal level just because they are federal and not local. Indeed, with the passage of the education bill and the prescription drug act, conservatives will now compete with liberals for fresh entitlements. It will be impossible now to oppose the next giveaway when some claimants contrive to meld themselves into a voting block. Republicans will now drop all pretenses and join the most shameless Democrats in shopping the nation, bit by bit, in exchange for a few percentage points in the polls.

Whether George Bush was motivated to go down this path out of a realistic understanding of modern American electoral realities or by personal conviction, I cannot say. But I can say with conviction that this part of his legacy has already been written.

""Indeed, with the passage of the education bill and the prescription drug act, conservatives will now compete with liberals for fresh entitlements.""

This is an untrue statement. Conservatives arent the beneficiaries of the welfare state as liberals are. Thus there is no reason to think they will be competeting for resources from the federal govt. If they do they will no longer be conservatives but will become liberals.

Think back to 1990-92. GHW Bush raised taxes and increased spedning faster than any PResident since LBJ (sound familiar)and Clinton won. How dark was it for conservatives then? All that is needed some one to come along and rearticulate conservatism. Conservatism is far from dead.

The problem conservatism is facing is its own success. People foreget federal spending in the 1970s was rising at an annual 10-12% rate. This year it will rise less than inflation. Federal spending as a % of GDP is still lower now than it was in 1992, though higher than in the late 1990s. But from the 1960s through 1980 the FED govts share of GDP rose every year. Since 1980 it has fluctuated between 20-22%.

It's all a matter of relativity in a changing world. It is not always possible to have it all your own way. It really doesn't make much sense to give up the WH and the Congress by being totally inflexible. This is what the left has done and look where they are today.

I agree to some of your points but looking at the total picture and considering GWB's foreign policy, tax cuts, attempt to save SS, energy policy, faith based initiatives and school vouchers, I would hardly consider the man lefty.